PDA

View Full Version : Egyptian paper doctors photo of Mubarak and Obama




bluetooth
Sep 17, 2010, 06:09 PM
Thought this was mildly entertaining. Some handy PS work by the media. :cool:

Egyptian paper doctors photo of Mubarak and Obama

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2869/screenshot20100917at702.png



ezekielrage_99
Sep 19, 2010, 07:42 PM
Nice find!

I actually used to analyse these types of images in my old job, it's pretty funny to see how bad some of the "shopjobs" are and how most people really don't notice.

cubist
Sep 19, 2010, 08:43 PM
In most parts of the world photographs are routinely manipulated. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if US and European news sources don't do it all the time too, they're just better at it. Honesty is a rare commodity these days.

ezekielrage_99
Sep 19, 2010, 08:52 PM
In most parts of the world photographs are routinely manipulated. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if US and European news sources don't do it all the time too, they're just better at it. Honesty is a rare commodity these days.

It not that it's uncommon (look at BP (http://gizmodo.com/5592836/bp-photoshops-another-official-image-again-terribly), the British "Baghad Gaol" photo (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1208623,00.html), KJI Photo (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1857430_1794847,00.html) and Iranian Missle test (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/) ) it's just certain groups are just not good at it thus why they tend to "stick out like dogs balls".

The issue being most people tend to believe what they seen thus the issue with very good photoshop jobs are very hard to spot. The good are very convincing.

covisio
Sep 20, 2010, 09:19 AM
...very good photoshop jobs are very hard to spot. The good are very convincing.

Plus further processing after the retouching has taken place, especially for web images (i.e. downsampling, compression), makes it harder to spot again.

bluetooth
Sep 20, 2010, 02:54 PM
Nice find!

I actually used to analyse these types of images in my old job, it's pretty funny to see how bad some of the "shopjobs" are and how most people really don't notice.

Hey, interesting finds there as well. I would say this one of the leaders if pretty noticeable, not only because of the fairly evident cutting paths around the people but also the background which has been completely removed aside from the red carpet. It is also interesting how they removed the gold boarder and changed it to a lighter hue. I wonder what the significance of that change was?

Nevertheless. I would suspect that 90% of the population do not even notice these things...unless you are in the design/art/photography industry the average eye is not trained to spot such abnormalities.

ezekielrage_99
Sep 20, 2010, 07:52 PM
Plus further processing after the retouching has taken place, especially for web images (i.e. downsampling, compression), makes it harder to spot again.

Actually that generally does the opposite, with poor clone brushing, chop jobs, composites and high compression it will make the surrounding area "bubble" thus making the area more evident to Photoshopping.

The best ones I've seen start with a very high quality image, they save it off lower quality, up-sample then re-save in a lower quality this "normalises" the image quality therefore making it harder to pick.

The ones that get caught I can guarantee are the one that start with a standard image, splice stuff into it then save it out. The mixed quality of imagery, depth of field, proportionality and logic are generally the basic principals that determines if it looks real or fake.

For instance with Bluetooth's image the give away is the circle in the top left (logic, pattern is inconsistent), "feathering around the person" (depth of field) and no shadow (logic).

MattSepeta
Sep 21, 2010, 11:30 AM
These bad shop-jobs blow my mind....

Who let that print???

Why did the paper want to make the leaders stand on a fake looking flying carpet in the middle of white space with bad drop shadows?